Background
The plaintiffs run a hospital as “M/s. Dr. Mubin Akhtar Hospital”. The defendant had registered that name as a trade mark. The plaintiffs sued in the High Court to challenge the registration, saying they were the prior users and that the defendant knew this.
They argued that the suit was about the registration, not infringement, and so belonged in the High Court. The defendants did not appear.
Questions before the court
- Whether the High Court or the Intellectual Property Tribunal has jurisdiction over a suit challenging a trade mark registration.
Decision
The court returned the plaint under Order VII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for presentation before the Intellectual Property Tribunal.
The court’s reasoning
- Sections 17 and 18 of the Intellectual Property Organization of Pakistan Act, 2012 came into force on 29 December 2015 (S.R.O. 1330(I)/2015).
- The Supreme Court in Muhammad Multazam Raza v. Muhammad Ayub Khan (2022 SCMR 979) held that the Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction where trade mark infringement is alleged, even together with passing off.
- Section 18(1) covers suits “regarding infringement of intellectual property laws”, which the court read as any violation of the laws in the Act’s Schedule, including the Trade Marks Ordinance (following Shaheen Chemist v. Zahid Mehmood Chaudhry, 2023 CLD 1).
- Section 117 of the Trade Marks Ordinance, as amended by Act No. LVIII of 2023, bars other courts from suits for infringement “or otherwise relating to any right in a trade mark”.
- The court also observed that a suit challenging a registration is questionable when sections 73 and 80 provide special remedies.
What this means in practice
Provisions and authorities
Laws and rules
- Intellectual Property Organization of Pakistan Act, 2012: sections 2(h), 17 and 18(1), and the Schedule
- Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001: sections 73, 80 and 117 (as amended by Act No. LVIII of 2023)
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order VII, Rule 10
- S.R.O. 1330(I)/2015
Cases referred to
- Muhammad Multazam Raza v. Muhammad Ayub Khan, 2022 SCMR 979
- Shaheen Chemist v. Zahid Mehmood Chaudhry, 2023 CLD 1
Source
Read the judgment on the High Court of Sindh case law portal ↗
The title of the published copy spells the hospital’s name “Mubib”.
This summary is general information, not legal advice. It may not reflect later appeals or changes in the law. Read the full judgment and take advice on your own facts. Checked on 25 October 2026.
Related
Dr. Mubin Akhtar Hospital: application to revoke a registered trade mark
Applications to revoke or invalidate a registered trade mark go to the Registrar of Trade Marks, unless proceedings about that mark are already pending in the court (sections 73(4), 80(4) and 116 of the Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001).
Muhammad Multazam Raza v. Muhammad Ayub Khan (2022 SCMR 979), as applied in Suit No. 226 of 2022
Where trade mark infringement is alleged, with or without passing off, the suit must be filed before the Intellectual Property Tribunal, which has exclusive jurisdiction under the IPO-Pakistan Act, 2012. The High Court returned the plaint on that basis.
Discuss your matter with us
Tell us what you need. We will confirm receipt and keep you updated at every stage.
Our comment